Comparing the efficacies of alginate, foam, hydrocolloid, hydrofiber, and hydrogel dressings in the management of diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis examining how to dress for success.

Diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers are chronic wounds frequently encountered by dermatologists. Choosing appropriate wound dressings can effectively promote wound healing and potentially reduce morbidity and financial burden experienced by patients. The objective of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate wound healing efficacies of synthetic active dressings in diabetic foot ulcer and venous leg ulcer management. For data collection, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and clinicaltrials.gov online databases were searched from database inception to 10 May 2015. Fixed and random effects modeling were used to calculate pooled risk ratios for complete ulcer healing from pairwise dressing comparisons. The results of our review showed moderate-quality level evidence that hydrogels were more effective in healing diabetic foot ulcers than basic wound contact dressings (RR 1.80 [95% CI, 1.27-2.56]). The other dressing comparisons showed no statistically significant differences between the interventions examined in terms of achieving complete diabetic foot ulcer healing. Non-adherent dressings were more cost-effective than hydrofiber dressings for diabetic foot ulcers in terms of mean total cost per patient of the dressings themselves. All venous leg ulcer pairwise dressing comparisons showed equivalent dressing efficacies in terms of promoting complete ulcer healing. Overall, most synthetic active dressings and traditional wound dressings are equally efficacious in treating diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers. For treating diabetic foot ulcers, hydrogels are more efficacious than basic wound contact dressings, and non-adherent dressings are more cost-effective than hydrofiber dressings. Ultimately, dressing choice should be tailored to the wound and the patient.

A randomized controlled trial of larval therapy for the debridement of leg ulcers: results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open, observer blind, parallel group study.

It has been known for centuries that the application of larvae is useful to heal certain wounds by facilitating debridement of necrotic tissue,(1) yet the efficacy of larval therapy continues to be debatable. This study compared the clinical effectiveness of a larval therapy dressing (BioFOAM) with a standard debridement technique (Purilon gel; hydrogel) in terms of time to debridement of venous (VLU) or mixed arterial/venous (MLU) leg ulcers. Data analyses were conducted on 88 subjects. Sixty-four subjects completed the full study. Of these, 31 of the 32 (96.9%) patients who completed treatment in the larvae arm debrided fully, compared with 11 of the 32 (34.4%) patients who completed the hydrogel arm. In addition, 42 (48%) ulcers fully debrided within the 21-day intervention phase, 31 (67.4%) from the larvae arm (n = 46), and 11 (26.2%) from the hydrogel arm (n = 42), which was statistically significant (p = 0.001) in support of larvae. A statistically significant difference was also observed between treatment arms with regard to numbers of dressing changes during the intervention phase of the study (p < 0.001) in that subjects in the larvae arm required significantly fewer dressing changes(mean = 2.83) than those in the hydrogel arm (mean = 5.40). There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical condition of the wound bed and surrounding skin by intervention. Subjects in the larvae arm experienced more ulcer-related pain or discomfort than subjects in the hydrogel arm (p < 0.001). This study provided good evidence to show that larval therapy, in the form of a BioFOAM dressing, debrided VLU and MLU considerably more quickly than a hydrogel, although the possibility of resloughing should be closely monitored.

Clinical and economic benefit of enzymatic debridement of pressure ulcers compared to autolytic debridement with a hydrogel dressing.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of enzymatic debridement using collagenase relative to autolytic debridement with a hydrogel dressing for the treatment of pressure ulcers. METHODS: A 3-stage Markov model was used to determine the expected costs and outcomes of wound care for collagenase and hydrogel dressings. Outcome data used in the analysis were taken from a randomized clinical trial that directly compared collagenase and hydrogel dressings. The primary outcome in the clinical trial was the proportion of patients achieving a closed epithelialized wound. Transition probabilities for the Markov states were estimated from the clinical trial. A 1-year time horizon was used to determine the expected number of closed wound days and the expected costs for the two alternative debridement therapies. Resource utilization was based on the wound care treatment regimen used in the clinical trial. Resource costs were derived from standard cost references and medical supply wholesalers. The economic perspective taken was that of the long-term care facility. No cost discounting was performed due to the short time horizon of the analysis. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted to analyze economic uncertainty. RESULTS: The number of expected wound days for the collagenase and hydrogel cohorts are estimated at 48 and 147, respectively. The expected direct cost per patient for pressure ulcer care was $2003 for collagenase and $5480 for hydrogel debridement. The number of closed wound days was 1.5-times higher for collagenase (317 vs 218 days) than with the hydrogel. The estimated cost/closed wound day was 4-times higher for the hydrogel ($25) vs collagenase ($6). CONCLUSIONS: In this Markov model based on a randomized trial of pressure ulcer care in a long-term care setting collagenase debridement was economically dominant over autolytic debridement, yielding better outcomes at a lower total cost. Since it was a single institution study with a small sample size, the results should be interpreted with caution. Specifically, the findings may not necessarily be generalized to other hydrogel dressings, healthcare settings, age groups, or to wounds of other etiologies.

Larval therapy for leg ulcers (VenUS II): randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of larval therapy with a standard debridement technique (hydrogel) for sloughy or necrotic leg ulcers. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three armed randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Community nurse led services, hospital wards, and hospital outpatient leg ulcer clinics in urban and rural settings, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 267 patients with at least one venous or mixed venous and arterial ulcer with at least 25% coverage of slough or necrotic tissue, and an ankle brachial pressure index of 0.6 or more. INTERVENTIONS: Loose larvae, bagged larvae, and hydrogel. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to healing of the largest eligible ulcer. Secondary outcomes were time to debridement, health related quality of life (SF-12), bacterial load, presence of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, adverse events, and ulcer related pain (visual analogue scale, from 0 mm for no pain to 150 mm for worst pain imaginable). RESULTS: Time to healing was not significantly different between the loose or bagged larvae group and the hydrogel group (hazard ratio for healing using larvae v hydrogel 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.68; P=0.54). Larval therapy significantly reduced the time to debridement (2.31, 1.65 to 3.2; P<0.001). Health related quality of life and change in bacterial load over time were not significantly different between the groups. 6.7% of participants had MRSA at baseline. No difference was found between larval therapy and hydrogel in their ability to eradicate MRSA by the end of the debridement phase (75% (9/12) v 50% (3/6); P=0.34), although this comparison was underpowered. Mean ulcer related pain scores were higher in either larvae group compared with hydrogel (mean difference in pain score: loose larvae v hydrogel 46.74 (95% confidence interval 32.44 to 61.04), P<0.001; bagged larvae v hydrogel 38.58 (23.46 to 53.70), P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Larval therapy did not improve the rate of healing of sloughy or necrotic leg ulcers or reduce bacterial load compared with hydrogel but did significantly reduce the time to debridement and increase ulcer pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55114812 and National Research Register N0484123692.

Cost effectiveness analysis of larval therapy for leg ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of larval therapy compared with hydrogel in the management of leg ulcers. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness and cost utility analyses carried out alongside a pragmatic multicentre, randomised, open trial with equal randomisation. Population Intention to treat population comprising 267 patients with a venous or mixed venous and arterial ulcers with at least 25% coverage of slough or necrotic tissue. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to debridement with bagged larvae, loose larvae, or hydrogel. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The time horizon was 12 months and costs were estimated from the UK National Health Service perspective. Cost effectiveness outcomes are expressed in terms of incremental costs per ulcer-free day (cost effectiveness analysis) and incremental costs per quality adjusted life years (cost utility analysis). RESULTS: The larvae arms were pooled for the main analysis. Treatment with larval therapy cost, on average, pound96.70 (euro109.61; $140.57) more per participant per year (95% confidence interval - pound491.9 to pound685.8) than treatment with hydrogel. Participants treated with larval therapy healed, on average, 2.42 days before those in the hydrogel arm (95% confidence interval -0.95 to 31.91 days) and had a slightly better health related quality of life, as the annual difference in QALYs was 0.011 (95% confidence interval -0.067 to 0.071). However, none of these differences was statistically significant. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the base case analysis was estimated at pound8826 per QALY gained and pound40 per ulcer-free day. Considerable uncertainty surrounds the outcome estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Debridement of sloughy or necrotic leg ulcers with larval therapy is likely to produce similar health benefits and have similar costs to treatment with hydrogel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55114812 and National Research Register N0484123692.

The cost and efficacy of two wound treatments.

Using the physiology of moist wound healing as the framework, this nonexperimental, retrospective chart review compared the rate of wound healing and cost of wound care associated with wet-to-dry normal saline gauze dressings to the rate of wound healing and cost of wound care associated with amorphous hydrogel dressings for patients with infrainguinal arterial disease and diabetes. These patients were discharged from the hospital to home care for management of perioperative arterial surgical wound dehiscence and nonhealing ulcerations. The sample included 25 patients who used wet-to-dry normal saline gauze dressings and 25 patients who used amorphous hydrogel dressings. Repeated measures of analysis of covariance revealed a similar rate of wound healing in the two groups. The overall cost of wound care was significantly higher (P = .006) for patients in the normal saline group, with a higher number and cost of home nursing visits. The cost of supplies was not significantly different between groups, although amorphous hydrogel dressings cost an average of dollar 50 more than wet-to-dry normal saline gauze dressings. The two treatments are equally efficacious in promoting wound healing, but amorphous hydrogel dressings are significantly more cost effective and, thus, a better value for the home care dollar.

Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a new synthetic polymer sheet wound dressing.

Stage II and III pressure ulcers present product development and product choice challenges to manufacturers and professional wound care clinicians respectively. We evaluated the clinical performance and cost of use associated with a new synthetic polymer dressing for the management of these wounds. A total of 10 home healthcare patients, each with a Stage II or III pressure ulcer, were enrolled and randomized for wound treatment using either the new polymer hydrogel wound dressing or the leading market hydrocolloid dressing. Dressings were changed on an as needed basis only. The wounds were assessed weekly and parameters recorded using the Bates-Jensen Pressure Sore Status Tool. In addition, the clinical performance of the dressing and treatment costs were evaluated. The overall healing rate for the two groups was similar. However the new polymer hydrogel dressing was found to have a more favorable overall clinical performance evaluation based largely on its more favorable support of autolytic debridement. The new polymeric dressing also had a more favorable cost of use based on the evaluation. We conclude that the new polymer dressing may be a favorable alternative to the leading market hydrocolloid dressing for the treatment of Stage II and III pressure ulcers due to a better clinical performance and the substantially lower treatment costs associated with its use.